ABC Statement: Criticisms of Path to 9/11 Are ‘Premature and Irresponsible’
ABC Statement: Criticisms of Path to 9/11 Are ‘Premature and Irresponsible’
ThinkProgress has obtained a statement released just now by ABC Television about its planned docudrama “The Path to 9/11.” The release says the “editing process is not yet complete, so criticisms of film specifics are premature and irresponsible.”
Statement from ABC Entertainment on The Path to 9/11
“The Path to 9/11″ is not a documentary of the events leading to 9/11. It is a dramatization, drawn from a variety of sources including the 9/11 Commission Report, other published materials, and personal interviews. As such, for dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, and time compression. No one has seen the final version of the film, because the editing process is not yet complete, so criticisms of film specifics are premature and irresponsible. The attacks of 9/11 were a pivotal moment in our history, and it is fitting that the debate about the events related to the attacks continue. However, we hope viewers will watch the entire broadcast of the finished film before forming an opinion about it.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
81 Responses to “ABC Statement: Criticisms of Path to 9/11 Are ‘Premature and Irresponsible’”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
ATTENTION! ANYONE ELSE HERE IN MANHATTAN/NY TODAY?
I WANT YOU TO JOIN ME IN FRONT OF ABC’S “Good Morning America†TIMES SQUARE (43RD ST.) STUDIOS TODAY AROUND 4:30 AND TOMORROW AROUND 7:00AM. I will be holdling a sign saying:
Anti
Bill
Clinton
Ask me why…
To draw initial attention and then handing out leaflets describing the current situation. I’m not the bravest soul in the world so anyone willing to join me would be most appreciated.
September 7th, 2006 at 2:27 pm"Just allow us to lie to the public with our propaganda, then you can complain after we do it"
Can you see my middle finger, its being given to ABC.
September 7th, 2006 at 2:28 pmUm, dudes - then why did you give advance copies to Rush Limbaugh and his right-wing friends? And, by the way, Cressey's comments from yesterday sound as if he did, in fact, view it.
But you gotta love the strategy - wait until it airs before criticizing it (even though ABC used Limbaugh, et al., to publicize the film in the right-wing stratosphere). As my old criminal law professor used to say - You can't put the cat back in the bag ...
September 7th, 2006 at 2:29 pmthen wouldnt it have also been inappropriate for rush limbaugh to get an advance screening?
September 7th, 2006 at 2:30 pm#3 Dave: My thoughts exactly - if they weren't finished editing it, then why hand out so many advance copies? It'd make sense to give some "rough drafts" to key players (Clinton, etc), but to hand it out to a broader audience and then claim that it's "not done" is total BS.
September 7th, 2006 at 2:32 pmWhat a sad day for ABC to stoop this low. Now I see what the Dems have been talking about .
September 7th, 2006 at 2:32 pmThey are in trouble here. They are digging themselves into a deep hole. That is cool, as they will be all the more embarassed when this thing flops. It does indeed look as though their buddies at Scholastic have abandoned them. Clinton is threatening legal action (how about an injunction, Big Dog?) and this is the lame ass crap they put out? Wow.
September 7th, 2006 at 2:32 pmSorry, that dog won't hunt. We cannot afford to wait til after ABC has a chance to distort 9/11 with its biased political drama before we speak out.
43% of the nation still thinks Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. Do we want 43% or more of the nation to think Clinton is responsible for not getting Bin Laden. 9/11 happened on Bush's watch and this attempt to distract us from that fact is not deserving of "wait and see".
September 7th, 2006 at 2:35 pmIsn't Oprah on ABC...she should hold some clout with the network.
September 7th, 2006 at 2:35 pmgoing to e-mail her and see what she has so say......
Boycott the basterds.
September 7th, 2006 at 2:36 pmI think an appropriate response to this statement is that ABC didn't seem to be complaining when their handpicked screener mailing list spoke in glowing terms about how wonderful this "unfinished production" is. They only seem to have a problem now that people are upset about it.
Further, there protestations would perhaps pass the laugh test if they agreed to actually provide copies of screeners to those actual people portrayed in the film in lieu of a ton of backwater right wing blogs. If they are looking for truth, why are they so afraid of contrary viewpoints?
This is looking more and more like a bungled mess by the Entertainment division in handing over a docudrama production to an avowed conservative activist who has a substantial record of providing slanted views on current events. It was compounded by their decision to bring a bunch of "yes men" onto their panel of experts, including Kean, who has since stepped back from the project.
ABC will have to be pushed into doing the right thing, because they are still relying on a heavily censored blog of their own for viewer input and the "comment after you see it and we can then call it old news" method.
If The Reagans was a shock to the memory of a former president and needed to be dropped from CBS, then Path to 9/11, a shock to the families of the thousands who were killed and to every American who remembers where they were when this tragedy occurs, should be more than enough to dump a biased documentary that, on the fifth anniversary of 9/11, is just another attack.
September 7th, 2006 at 2:41 pmthat's great! lie about the lie your going to tell and then lie about the people who protest... soviet style propaganda pure and simple. they ought to be ashamed of themselves. they are un-american.
"Um, dudes - then why did you give advance copies to Rush Limbaugh and his right-wing friends? And, by the way, Cressey’s comments from yesterday sound as if he did, in fact, view it."
right on dave!!!
September 7th, 2006 at 2:47 pm"Irresponsible"? Like their "docudrama"?
September 7th, 2006 at 2:48 pmSo ABC, are we to believe that you're actually reshooting entire scenes in an effort address any inaccuracy just 4 days before this thing is supposed to air? Is that what you're telling us? Riiiiiiight...
September 7th, 2006 at 2:48 pmAmerica's Least Wanted
It appears to me as though they got themselves into a storm beyond what they expected and are now trying to save face. It'll never be provable, but I'm pretty damn sure that the finished product now will be significantly different from what we would have seen had the protests not occurred.
Not that that changes the sleazy way ABC has handled this docudrama up to this point.
September 7th, 2006 at 2:51 pmhere is my email to the GM of the ABC affiliate in Washington DC.
Take action!
----------------------------
As a long-time viewer of ABC 7 (nearly 20 years), I need to take a moment to express concern over the up-coming "docu-dram" - the Path to 9/11.
In doing research on the internet, it appears that there are numerous factual errors portrayed in the film. Seeing that the film is being partially marketed to high school teachers as an "education opportunity", I believe that it is extremely important for the film to accurately portray the events.
It also does not escape me that this film is being released in the run-up to the mid-term elections, and there might be a political bias involved in the timing.
Due to the importance of the subject matter, I feel very strongly about the need for the film to portray the events factually. If the film is shown with the kind of fictional spin that the preview has indicated, I promise to boycott your channel, and every parent and subsidiary company of ABC.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
September 7th, 2006 at 2:57 pmSure the editing isn't done yet - believe that and I've got some swamp land in Arizona to sell you! If it isn't finished yet, what are bona fide copies of the program doing out and about? ABC is proving that not only are they in the pocket of the GOP but they lie from the exact same playbook. Go ahead ABC - finish yourself off - please, we're begging you. Run that mockumentary and fry.
September 7th, 2006 at 2:59 pmTo Ken in DC
You wrote this asinine letter without having seen the movie but based on hearsay "research on the internet"? Can you make a conclusive statement based on facts? You are an idiot, period.
Your post demonstrates that you, and your ilk, undermine the Democratic party's attempts at credible and serious dialogue.
September 7th, 2006 at 3:04 pmJT sez:
That's a laugh. So, one has to experience events first hand to be entitled to an opinion about them? Why, then, do we have books, JT? Why do we have teachers? Clearly, there's nothing that can be learned from such sources, as it's all 'hearsay'...right?
Dolt.
Actually, if you had bothered to read Ken in DC's letter, it gave ABC a rather large benefit of the doubt. He didn't attempt to say anything conclusive, which was quite responsible of him, as he (like everyone else who isn't a right wing pundit) hasn't had the chance to actually see the film yet.
Certainly, after the film is out, we all will be able to make much more definitive statements, but by then the damage will be done. It's somewhat embarassing that you don't understand that.
Nice jab, but it falls far short. In light of the ample evidence uncovered by this latest neocon caper, your statement applies to the Republican party far more accurately.
September 7th, 2006 at 3:24 pmtest
September 7th, 2006 at 3:28 pmHmmm... how about this possible scenario: ABC has edited more than one version of the film. They send the right-wing media the inflammatory one to create buzz and a sure-fire audience. But there are other, more true-to-history scenes in the can that will go into the final cut, the one that will air. I doubt ABC's legal honchos approved the script strictly as the version that's going around appears to have been written. Too risky for that kind of corporation, that kind of budget. I'm pretty certain they've got their asses well covered with extra footage.
September 7th, 2006 at 3:28 pmYour post demonstrates that you, and your ilk, undermine the Democratic party’s attempts at credible and serious dialogue.
Comment by JT — September 7, 2006 @ 3:04 pm
I smell a troll.
September 7th, 2006 at 3:29 pmATTENTION! ANYONE ELSE HERE IN MANHATTAN/NY TODAY?
I WANT YOU TO JOIN ME IN FRONT OF ABC’S “Good Morning America†TIMES SQUARE (43RD ST.) STUDIOS TODAY AROUND 4:30 AND TOMORROW AROUND 7:00AM. I will be holdling a sign saying:
Anti
September 7th, 2006 at 3:30 pmBill
Clinton
Ask me why…
Ummm...this is America?! We are allowed to express our positions. We don't care if someone says we are "premature". When our opinions can be supressed, THEN it will be too late...
September 7th, 2006 at 3:31 pmTsk,tsk, tsk JT! - resorting to name calling. If there was no problem with the films historical accuracy, then why does ABC dignify the criticisims with a (rather lame) response?
I think it is obvious that this film has a political slant, given that it was distributed to the right wing media in advance, and not to any "key players" in the Clinton admin. I don't have to see the film to figure that out.
William Cohen (Clinton's Sec of Defense, and a Republican) has stated recently (See "Bob Edward's Weekend" on PRI) that while there were plenty of opportunities to get Bin Laden, pinpointing a single human target on the ground where we had little or no intelligence capabity and no boots on the ground was just not workable. Just look - five years later and thousands of boots on the ground and he is STILL out there! Who do you blame for that?
September 7th, 2006 at 3:32 pmCan you imagine the nerve of ABC???? Suggesting you WATCH the movie first and theeeeen OPINE??? What do they think progs are, OPEN-MINDED?
September 7th, 2006 at 3:33 pmKatie Couric is on CBS. Brian Williams is on NBC. charliewho is nowhere. gma is gonna look good on cable. ABC is going to have to make up big time for this. Maybe a Clinton shot JFKminiseries.
September 7th, 2006 at 3:34 pmSo now we are left guessing whether "JT" works for ABC, the DLC, the GOP, or the Lieberman campaign.
September 7th, 2006 at 3:35 pmABC is not the only culprit, as most of you know. Perhaps the biggest and most eggregious member of this tribe is Scholastic. What they are doing, promoting and producing is nothing short of enethical in the extreme.
Here is my recommendation: Go to and fill out the online form up to and including the Information Data. In that text box make your complaints hear. I am attaching a coppy of the letter I sent to ABC with the recommendation that we boycott Scholastic? How? Read On:
There are apparently great gaffs in the film Road to 9-11, both factually and politically. Yes, we understand this is not a documentary. It is, pardon the scream, entertainment. Yet, both ABC and Scholastic are promoting and producing materials which strongly suggest that what this film portrays is truth. This, in a word, is unethical. In another word, it is wrong.
We, here in the USA, already have a burden to bear: a cynical disbelief in our political system and those, on both sides of the aisle and in the executive branch. As a former journalist, I hasten to add that as the 4th pillar of our democracy, the disregard with which our citizens harken to the press makes this decision by ABC a slap in the face.
In correspondence to Scholastic I noted that here in Rochester, NY, there is a growing sense of anger and frustration among teachers and other adults (a lot of poliltically active adolescents, too) that this project in particular deserves our attention. More over, those with whom I am in touch (several hundred) are considering an out right boycott of Scholastic. Not just their educational materials but, and maybe more importantly, the next Harry Potter novel. This may sound, at first note, like going from the sublime to the ridiculous (or, as Harry's Defense Against the Dark Arts professor would say "RIDIKULOUS"). However, considering the gold mine the series has provided Scholastic, a serious boycott could significantly diminish their bottom line.
Please, hold off on the project, correct the errors and work with Scholastic to present an honest and ethical foundation upon which to promote serious debate and discussion.
Nick Clark
September 7th, 2006 at 3:37 pmTech Teacher
Rochester, NY
Using the Think Progress template the other day, I added another alternative that apparently had not been considered.
September 7th, 2006 at 3:37 pm
It doesn't really matter...everyone will be boycotting it anyway.
September 7th, 2006 at 3:40 pmmighty aphrodite sez:
Please scroll up and read my earlier response to your fellow troll JT's rantings, as they apply equally well to you, and I can't be bothered to type it out all over again.
September 7th, 2006 at 3:46 pmJt, Mighty Aphrodite, and others
September 7th, 2006 at 3:48 pmIf the major players in 9-11 have identified gross factual errors in this film, which started out as a "documentary", then it would be irresponsible and unAmerican for us not to challenge this film being aired. If ABC is "brave", as has been suggested, then they should ignore the challenges and run the film. They got caught with their pants down and you accuse of liberals of calling them exhibitionists.
Spin it left, spin it right, guess what? More will tune in and watch it! Then what? ABC wins!!!!
Smart PR in my humble opinion.
September 7th, 2006 at 3:48 pmI find it interesting that AOL cut out a piece of its "story telling" column, stating; "Disney has already distributed the film for educational purposes." Yet, when I just went back, to block it, to reprint here, verbatim . . . it was no longer there . . .
September 7th, 2006 at 3:59 pmI'm starting a write in campaign for CBS to air the Reagan movie.
You know, free speech and everything.
September 7th, 2006 at 4:03 pmI've got one thing to say to people like "JT" and "mighty aphrodite":
The GOP and their right-wingers had no problem at all raising a storm to get the mini-series "The Reagans" removed from broadcast television back in 2003 before anyone was allowed to see it on NBC. It ended up being broadcast on Showtime (cable).
So in other words...if you're complaining about us exercising our right to free speech to criticize this so called "docu-drama" that is being sold to schools as factual educational material, you're nothing more than a hypocrite who needs to stop flinging stones before their glass house breaks into a million pieces.
September 7th, 2006 at 4:05 pmThe editing process will never be complete considering:
(a) the central theme of the movie is that it Clinton did nothing to stop Bin Laden and therefore Bush bears absolutely no responsibility.
(b) the implications of the movie are that Democrats are weak and more concerned with sex than safety, while Republicans are strong and will protect us
(C) anyone who isn't a rabid right-wing fanatic is being shut out of the viewing process and therefore their criticisms will be written off as being partisan attack on poor ABC by people who haven't even seen the film.
How can editing address the criticism when the criticism is all revolving around point A? ANd if they are still editing, why are they pushing so hard for this movie to air no matter who complains? Why are they openly showing it to right-wingers while not allowing any left-wingers to view it? Why are central events in the movie totally fabricated to make Clinton look as bad as possible? Why does the movie put ZERO responsibility on BUsh's shoulders, and in fact go out of its way to imply he did everything he possibly could? Why is the marketing and "educational" materials for this movie already made and being solicited to high schools if the movie isn't completed? Surely if the edits were changing the themes or the misinformation that is the heart of all this outrage...wouldn't they have to change all the marketing and "Educational" material as well?
Editing won't fix the criticism and I believe their claims of still editing is just one more lie they are using as a stall tactic. They want to write off as much of the criticism as possible so that by the time the facts are out about this movie being a lie...it's too late and people have watched and believed it to be fact.
September 7th, 2006 at 4:08 pmI take issue with any fictionalization of such a significant and tragic event in our history.
National Geographic Channel aired a 6 hour documentary on the events leading to and including the 9/11 attacks ("Inside 911") and did so without any dramatization or "accidents" of fiction. It was pure documentary with actual footage of the trade center attack, the bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa, and interviews with government officials from both the Clinton and Bush administrations. It was not anti-Clinton or anti-Bush. In fact, there was no apparent politicalization of either side.
I viewed it twice and then bought the DVD. It held my attention without any embellishments of the facts.
There should be no need to dramatize any part of 9/11 and to do so is to trivialize the tragedy. The facts, the people involved, and the aftermath are dramatic enough.
September 7th, 2006 at 4:15 pmIt is neither premature NOR irresponsible to comment on the ABC propaganda piece. It has several serious errors that, according to an ABC memo to reichwingnut bloggers, are NOT going to be fixed or edited out. This is the infamous memo that says the crapudrama will still bash Clinton.
ABC sent out 7000 advance copies of this crapudrama...and ONLY sent them to reichwingnuts. Clinton never got one. Madeline Albright never got one. Sandy Berger never got one. And they all were viciously libelled in this ABC piece of shit.
If ABC feels confident enough about this crapudrama to send out 7000 advance DVDs of it, then it is neither premature NOR irresponsible for anyone to comment on it.
ABC can go to hell. They got caught with their pants down on this one and deserve to be flogged until they beg for mercy. BOYCOTT ABC/DISNEY!!
September 7th, 2006 at 4:19 pmABC can't un-crap a bed.
They show it, the will pay a heavy toll in terms of audience numers.
September 7th, 2006 at 4:25 pmHere's the classic conservative double standard. They howled when CBS brought out the supposed documents that showed W. shirked his service in the Alabama National Guard. The issue there was that the Network didn't have the right to protray something as fact, without valid proof that the action occured. Now, he may have in reality not shown up for duty for a year, but basing an accusation on weak or no evidence is wrong.
Which brings us to this "documentary" (or "docu-drama"). As an presumably objective piece ("based on the 9/11 commission"), this director, in effect, is fabricating evidence of guilt for some of the Clinton Administration by taking creative license to portray something that has no basis of reality within the 9'11 Commission report.
It is, in essense, a forged document much like the papers that CBS dragged out in front of the media. It doesn't mean that Sandy Berger DIDN'T refuse to take out OBL, but there is no supporting evidence anywhere the report to corroborate that; just as that there's no evidence to support that W. failed to report for duty.
Oh wait, that's right; there's no evidence to support that he did, either.
September 7th, 2006 at 4:29 pmMaybe one of the Reich Wingnuts in here could post their advance copy of "Path to 911" on the internet so we could see it.
Funny how 7000 advance copies were sent out...ONLY to Reich Wingnuts.
September 7th, 2006 at 4:34 pmTigris Lily.
National Geographic showed another documentary last weekend that ties in with the one you watched called Triple Crossed: Osama bin Laden's Spy. I highly recommend everybody to see that one also. As with Inside 911, the is no BS, it doesn't blame anybody and just reports the facts. Triple Crossed is about al Qaida. Check it out. Very good show.
September 7th, 2006 at 4:47 pmABC says this crapudrama is "based on the 911 Commission report".
There is already one scene with a factual error in it that is in direct contradiction to the 911 Report.
ABC is running a blatantly partisan propaganda piece to influence the November elections in the Republicans' favor. No doubt about it.
September 7th, 2006 at 4:52 pm#27
Can you imagine the nerve of ABC???? Suggesting you WATCH the movie first and theeeeen OPINE??? What do they think progs are, OPEN-MINDED?
Gee, you say that as if YOU were openminded.
I'm satisfied with just the people who are being portrayed in this movie, and who were actually there when the fictional events DIDN'T happen, getting to view it and telling us in advance that ABC is about to air six hours of right-wing propaganda in a last ditch effort to save the mid-term elections for the GOP.
Yes. We saw through you.
September 7th, 2006 at 4:52 pmJT & Mighty,
The problem with this fakudrama is that the propoganda sticks in the minds of the incurious. 43% still believe the 9/11 - Iraq connection. In the town I am from about 25% of the people don't believe we landed on the moon. How can you have any kind of intelligent discourse with people who discard inconvenient facts, or create their own? We need facts, not fabrications.
Surely you are not so ensconsed in your views that you support disseminating lies, even when it bolsters your position do you? Given a set of facts, we can agree to disagree over which theory makes that facts fit best, but we are screwed if we try to arrive at a consensus with made up bullshit.
A friend of mine says, "You have facts and logic to support your position, and I have my faith, and both positions are equal." I find that ridiculous.
There is a real world out there, with real enemies that want to harm us. We need an intelligent and fact based response, not propaganda, whether it comes from left or right.
September 7th, 2006 at 5:29 pmYeah, right, they are still editing.
But apparently an unfinished film was good enough for the limesy.
It aired on the BBC two nights ago.
September 7th, 2006 at 5:31 pmI will be holdling a sign saying: Anti Bill Clinton Ask me why…
Because you think it is 1998 and someone else will give a shit about Bill Clinton's political career ?
Guinness Book of Records attempt for the most irrelevant and pointless statement on a sign ?
Hotel check out is extremely early and you've got nothing better to do ?
September 7th, 2006 at 5:36 pmsomeone ought to tell abc that "it'd be irresponsible not to speculate"
September 7th, 2006 at 5:39 pmOfftopic, but important.
I submitted this post under my usual name, but now it's attributed to Styve. Something appears to be going slightly haywire with the message board software.
Just thought you ought to know.
September 7th, 2006 at 5:39 pmMy letter to former Senator Mitchell, Chairman of the Board at Disney:
>>
Senator Mitchell,
As Chairman of the Board at Disney, I am writing to you to voice my disappoint with ABC's upcoming "docudrama" called Path to 9/11.
First of all, while screeners were sent out to Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing talking heads and bloggers (some well-known, some very minor), screeners were not provided to their counterparts on the left-wing. In fact, President Clinton and other major officials (misre)presented in Path to 9/11 were even denied access to the movie. The maker of this piece is a known right wing conservative, friends with Rush Limbaugh, and is known for issues with historical accuracies in his past works.
As people on the right began singing the praises of how the movie, originally touted by ABC as "based solely on the 9/11 report,"showed how Clinton did next to nothing in response to terror threats, it became clear there were many inaccuracies, misrepresentations, and even that scenes and events were completely made up to mislead the viewers about what actually happened.
As it was discovered that these inaccuracies didn't match the 9/11 report, and even contradict its findings, on top of the fictional events that never took place. In fact, on page 128 of the report, Clinton received similar warnings in 1998 about a possible hijacking, and took measures to tighten security at the airports, notify the FAA and more, and that attack never took place (several of the suspects in the attacks were arrested). Somehow I doubt this "pre-9/11 9/11" made it into the movie, as whole situations were made up to make it look like the US had agents right outside UBL's house waiting to move in and were denied, and how the movie states that Clinton wouldn't authorize taking out UBL when he did on every single occasion.
I am sure you are aware of the controversy this program is attracting. This is very similar to the outrcy from conservatives wanting to protect the legacy of Ronald Reagan 3 years ago when a movie on the Reagans was about to be aired on CBS. Outcries from the RNC and many Republican pundits resulted in the cancellation of the airing of the movie on CBS (although it was ultimately shown on Showtime). Many of those remarks are collected here ( http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/09/bush-supporters-condemn-fictionalized.html ) and they ring true now just as they did 3 years ago. If a movie is going to be made, it should be factual and accurate, without making up things that never happened to show the subject in a bad light.
You cannot let Path to 9/11, a clearly partisan piece with its gross inaccuracies and falsehoods, air this Sunday and Monday (releasing it on DVD is another matter, and ABC/Disney is free to do so).
This is not a partisan issue. It is about accuracy and the truth versus making up events that never happened to shift the blame months before an important election season. I shudder to think that ABC could be part of airing such a blatantly partisan piece that attempts to rewrite history, especially months before the November election period.
Here are remarks from one of the 9/11 Commission members blasting the accuracy of the show and its label as based on the truth ( http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/09/07/and-another-thing-2/ ). This ( http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/09/04/hijacking-911/ ) outlines some of the many inaccuracies in the "improvised" fictitious scenes, backed up with real facts.
If you do not pull this movie, you will no doubt face a huge backlash across the country, because this is not just ABC - it is Disney as well, and most adults in this country have children.
I sincerely urge you to think hard about this matter and I hope you come to the right conclusion, to stop this program from airing.
Thank you very much.
September 7th, 2006 at 5:43 pmDon't play a victim.
Boycott ABC.
September 7th, 2006 at 5:54 pm#51 Tank
Because you think it is 1998 and someone else will give a shit about Bill Clinton’s political career ?
Let me help you with this one, since you're not getting it. This has nothing to do with "Bill Clinton's political career". As far as I knew, it was over. This is about not letting the irresponsible, unaccountable Bush administration and its right-wing historical revisionists blame their failures on someone else.
You don't like history the way it happened? Too freakin' bad. You don't have the right to change it.
September 7th, 2006 at 6:06 pm8. 43% of the nation still thinks Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. Do we want 43% or more of the nation to think Clinton is responsible for not getting Bin Laden. 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch and this attempt to distract us from that fact is not deserving of “wait and seeâ€.
Comment by Ceee — September 7, 2006 @ 2:35 pm
No you wouldn't want 43% of Americans to think that, but then again with the intelligence of the US population hoping for 100% is probably a bit optimistic.
Seriously, have you sufferred a head injury ? If I take a quick poll here would you not expect to not see a majority (let alone 100%) stating that it is Bush's responsibility to get bin Laden during his term ?
Yes, the 9/11 attacks happened on Bush's watch. They were carried out by the group who declared war on the US and then carried out their first 4 attacks during Clinton's watch.
Can you see or even imagine how Clinton may be relevant there when the story of how 9/11 came about by the guy who was still alive to organise it ?
The fact is the US had opportunities to kill OBL during Clinton's term and pulled out of several for political purposes. If you are happy to write off this well known, researched, testified fact as "debunked" because Richard Clark sent an email saying it wasn't Bill himself it was the CIA (like you shouldn't have figured this out yourself already) then do that and feel better about how 9/11 turned out.
Then cease criticising Bush entirely. I mean, you don't seriously believe he has personally made any crucial, pivotal decision in regard to Iraq do you ?
September 7th, 2006 at 6:07 pm#57
September 7th, 2006 at 6:23 pmSo you don't believe Richard Clarke, a guy who worked for both Bush administrations as well as Clinton's and was an eyewitness to the events that are supposed to be portrayed in this movie. But, you do believe Cyrus Nowrasteh, whose credentials are...what? What orifice did he pull his information from.
testing
September 7th, 2006 at 7:55 pmthis is a test
September 7th, 2006 at 7:55 pmTo JT....
I am obviously devestated that someone with your mental capacity thinks I am an idiot. I suppose you are right - we should allow the "docu-drama" to be played without comment. If it happens that the 43% of Americans who believe there is a Iraq / 9/11 connecion buy this fabricated history hook line and sinker, so be it!
Also - notice I did not stoop to your level and engage in name-calling.
September 7th, 2006 at 9:18 pm#54: nice letter but you have a misplaced modifier.
It sounds like you're the chairman of the board and not Sen. Mitchell.
Sorry, the elite liberal grammar police strike again...
September 7th, 2006 at 10:52 pmAs i stated at C&L This flic will be seen by the most impressionable and maluable Part of the populous the un-educated. This is 150 million of the most brainwashed folks on this planet and there hungry for there next FIX. Fighting this flood of Mis-informed folks with the truth is our only hope because i think that this program is going to air Un-modified just to cause the informed to have to work all the much more to inform the world of this mess we all are staring down the barrel of. Educate Inform and above all fight the propaganda.
September 8th, 2006 at 12:22 am[...] There’s been a whole lot of bloggy commotion about ABC’s Path to 9/11. Seems that many of us liberals types are obessed with its alleged wholesale alterations of recent history — alterations that coincidentally seem to align with pre-election Republican talking points. However, it’s the conservative movie blog, Libertas, that has pointed out the real film threat of the moment. [...]
September 8th, 2006 at 12:36 amWhat are you talking about ?
I didn't say I didn't believe him. I said he didn't say anything you shouldn't have already known or figured out yourself.
The aborted assassination attempts on OBL (plural if you weren't aware) including the people involved were well documented and even broadcast in 2 hour documentary format years ago.
The only disbelief I have about Richard Clark's email it is how ThinkProgress could be referring to this as contradicting something as though they only just found this out and as though they didn't have a better source to cite until this came along. It's a 2nd hand account of one man's statement in an email.
Seriously. Don't bother bitching about how bad it is that this drama gets specific details wrong if you never cared enough to know any of it happened in the first place. Clearly they couldn't have been that important.
September 8th, 2006 at 4:46 amShowdown...
Congressional Democrats are now directly confronting Disney over its political hit piece, "The Path to 9/11"....
September 8th, 2006 at 7:36 amTank -
Richard Clarke doesn't dispute that attempts to assassinate OBL were called off, what he disputes is the portrayal of those attempts in the movie and the motivations it ascribes to Clinton for cancelling them. If YOU had actually paid attention to the testimony of principals involved at the time, you would know that the movie grossly distorts 1) how close US operatives were to capturing/killing OBL and 2) the reasons the attacks were cancelled. In fact, George Tenet has previously testified that, in perhaps the most well-known such incident, he was the one who decided to pull the plug, not Clinton. No serious person denies that we missed opportunities to kill or capture OBL on Clinton's watch (and your pal Bush has been so much more successful, eh?), but the claim that we were inches away from doing so and refused to act because of Cinton's sex issues or political distractions is just something you pulled out of your ass. Were you or any of the other people who make such charges involved in the meetings where these decisions were taken? Have you spoken to the people who were there? If not, don't presume to own the truth on the matter because you heard Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity say so. If you have some unimpeachable source for such claims, offer it, otherwise stop making them.
September 8th, 2006 at 10:10 amKen in DC...
You can't spell, and you are peeved that ABC has the temerity (look it up, misspellers usually don't have a large vocabulary) to run a docudrama based on creative license. Hmmm... and you also reiterate a statistic (43% of Americans...) from another post that does not provide its underlying source thereby lending credence to a theory without proof or facts to back it up. Yes, we should take your claims seriously.
September 8th, 2006 at 10:56 amYeah, running a "dramatization" on the 5th anniversary of the deaths of 3000 americans based on "creative license" (your words), but billing it as "based on the 911 Commission Report". For good measure, make shit up. That's appropriate...keep telling yourself that.
FLASHBACK to 2003:
'The Reagans' has CBS playing defense
By Gary Levin, USA TODAY
A four-hour miniseries on Ronald and Nancy Reagan has created a firestorm for CBS as Republican loyalists marshaled a campaign to soften the TV movie's depiction of the former president.
Emmy and Golden Globe Award-winners James Brolin and Judy Davis star as Ronald and Nancy Reagan in The Reagans.
• In the past two weeks, CBS has made 18 changes to the completed film, enraging its producers, says a person knowledgeable about the production.
• Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie sent CBS a letter Friday requesting that The Reagans be reviewed for "historical accuracy" by Reagan intimates. Barring that, he asked the network to insert a disclaimer "crawl" every 10 minutes during the film that describes it as fictional.
•Newsweek reports today that CBS is considering dumping the movie on its sibling pay channel Showtime, which suggests that the furor has sent advertisers fleeing.
Reagan loyalists, basing criticisms largely on media reports, remain unswayed and say the portrayal is unfair. "The troublesome aspect is it may be perceived by some to be historically accurate," Republican National Committee spokesman Jim Dyke says
September 8th, 2006 at 11:31 am[...] Now — just in time for the November elections, there’s a new finger-exercise video: The Path to 9/11, helpfully provided by ABC. [...]
September 8th, 2006 at 11:41 am[...] ABC now is blasting critics of Path to 9/11, saying the movie isn’t complete. From a statement yesterday: No one has seen the final version of the film, because the editing process is not yet complete, so criticisms of film specifics are premature and irresponsible. [...]
September 8th, 2006 at 2:32 pmAt this time, I would like to protest the biased and slanted piece of Goebbels-like propaganda called Farenheit 9/11. It is funny to see that the very same people calling for Michael Moore's "right to his opinion and First amendment free-speech rights" are so prompt to deny the maker of the mini-series "Path to 9/11" the same priviledge accorded by the United States Constitution.
I guess when one is a socialist, one has to be a Stalinist and deny any opposing point of view the right to be aired.
I also am surprised to see that ABC, a long-time defender of the democratic-socialist cause in the USA and abroad, even considered airing a contrarian point of view, but am not surprised now that they have already surrendered to the protests of the people who really have something to hide.
Of course, many of you here believe that the whole thing was orchestrated around a good mechoui meal between Bush, Cheney, Exxon execs and Bin Laden, down to the explosives placed inside the WTC and detonated from the White House while fake videos of planes were shown on complicit networks.
I will leave you to your collective delusions. Better convert now before you are forced to do so, Allah is great...
September 8th, 2006 at 4:38 pmPeople it seems to me that DEMOCRATS HAVE TWO SIDES WHEN THAT FAT GUYS AND F/11 CAME OUT they were happy right.
NOW THAT A MOVIE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT WILL BE ON A TV THEY GET SCARED.
WHY OR MAYBE CLINTON WAS STILL FOOLING AROUND WITH MONICA, OR SIMPLE SLEEPING ON THE COUGH WHO CARES.
HOWEVER IF CLINTON HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE BIN LADEN OUT WHY HE DIDNT DO IT IF THAT IS TRUE.
ISN'T THAT A PRESIDENT HAVE TO LEAVE PERSONAL PROBLEMS ASIDE TO TAKE CARE OF THE COUNTRY WELL THEN WHY CLINTON DIDN'T DO IT.
ITS SO EASY FOR DEMOCRATS OPEN THEIR MOUTH AND TALK A LOT OF CRAP LIKE HILLARY , MR. KENNEDY, MANY MORE BUT WHAT DO YOU THINK THEY WILL DO, HAVE A MEETING AND DRINK TEA WITH BIN LADEN .
DO YOU DEMOCRATS THINK THAT RADICALS GIVE A DAMN IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK OR DISCUSS OUR DIFFERENCES.
September 8th, 2006 at 8:33 pmny dvd complete
March 19th, 2008 at 9:59 amGay Sex Gay Ass Gay Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 23rd, 2008 at 1:21 amEducational Video Production
I enjoyed reading your blog. It is so interesting reading other peoples personal take on a subject.
March 25th, 2008 at 2:38 pmSex Free Sex Pictures Office Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 25th, 2008 at 6:22 pmOnline Payday Loan
March 27th, 2008 at 11:58 pmStar Affiliate Marketing Blogs
Want to take a look at my site, you will find it very interesting.
March 29th, 2008 at 7:27 amAshlie
To do something, however small, to make others happier and better, is the highest ambition, the most elevating hope, which can inspire a human being.
March 30th, 2008 at 2:21 pmdisney on a budget
Your site regarding %TITLE% looks very interesting to me. I found it doing a search for %KEYWORD%.
April 4th, 2008 at 9:23 amSex Girls Having Sex Rough Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 4th, 2008 at 2:16 pmAuto Loans
Car Loans are ordinarily consumers who like abrupt green along with basic method .
April 6th, 2008 at 7:16 am